Mr. Carpenter:Hm, well the vast majority of Americans are okay with paying 1.50/person/year to fund it,

And that is fine. I have a different opinion that this 'vast majority'. It is not a huge deal to me in any case as this is a pretty small budget item. However, when you have trillion dollar deficits every year, it is time to cut out the fluff.

Dr Dreidel:Ilmarinen: Well yes, that's what I gathered from the past weeks. But in a debate with a moderator and everything Obama could have asked for a specification and after Romney's answer say, "so you refuse to give specifics". In front of the whole country.

He did. Romney's answer was "I govern from philosophy, because compromise is important and I don't want to get tied down to numbers and have someone use them against me later."

He then forgot to add "...and I know, because we've spent an entire campaign misreading your stimulus numbers," and he forgot to finish with a "...and by the way, teabaggers who think compromise is weakness: I just cut you farkers off at the knees. Vote Romney."

// is it a pyrrhic victory if the teabaggers are chest-thumping Romney's "win" and not realizing that in doing so, he basically undermined both their raison d'etre and their favorite non-social causes?

Not really. The moderator's question was something like "How will you reduce legislative gridlock so things can get done?" Romney could hardly answer "I will stand like a rock and refuse to compromise, because gridlock is preferable when most legislation would do more harm than good." Romney had no choice but to say in effect "I will work across the aisle" and having said that it was logical to then trumpet the fact that he did so as Governor.

I don't think Romney lost many Tea Party votes in the debate. Almost everything Romney said seemed calibrated to please anyone who, to the extent they are drawn towards either the R's or the Tea Party or Ron Paul, are drawn in that direction because of fiscal policies and individualistic views rather than social conservatism. Were any social conservative hot buttons pressed in the debate? Did Obama say a Romney presidency would threaten a woman's right to choose or progress on gay rights? Are they purposely leaving all that more flammable stuff to Biden-Ryan?

GooberMcFly:Holy crap, what happened in 2001 that caused that incredible increase in the debt?

A couple of things:

-Some fool went and passed a tax cut that required a massive increase in the debt ceiling to pay for all of the $300 rebates that were going out.

-The federal reserve dropped interest rates 9 times, putting rates at historic lows which jump-started the housing bubble, as many people who wouldn't have otherwise jumped into the housing market at that time did so in a massive rush, causing house prices to spike, which in turn caused a whole new group of people who weren't necessarily looking to move to sell their houses to cash out at the newly inflated value. This massive influx of new business hit the major banks like a shot of heroin, and they went greed crazy.

Ok so now that its devolved into whatever, and people are talking about saving money, I've heard so many people suggest drug testing for welfare recipients. Why isn't this something I'm hearing on a national level? I've tried to see the negative and I can't. Wouldn't that be a better place to bring an ax than PBS? Its not like politicians would lose them as a voting or tax base, people who actually need it (and still those who don't) would still get it, and kids of parents who are on drugs would be removed from bad situations. I'm almost hoping I'm missing something because otherwise I'm just going to be even more annoyed with government.

HeadLever:Mr. Carpenter: Hm, well the vast majority of Americans are okay with paying 1.50/person/year to fund it,

And that is fine. I have a different opinion that this 'vast majority'. It is not a huge deal to me in any case as this is a pretty small budget item. However, when you have trillion dollar deficits every year, it is time to cut out the fluff.

http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/goals/objectivity/cpb_survey2_summary.pdf

Survey conducted among random sampling of adult Americans. 58% self identified as conservative. 83% said they believe PBS is worthwhile investment, deserves to be funded. Only 16% disagreed. If 83% isn't a goddamn vast majority, than you're living an freaking fairy wonderland.

Needsun:The difference between Conservative Government and a Socialist Government (that of the American Left) when shaken down to its raw essentials will make, or break, the United States of America.

The American Democrat Party, which is, in truth, the socialist party, does not see it that way. Actually they do see it that way, but the problem they have is that they cannot exist under a Constitutional government in the US. Freedom and Socialism cannot exist in the same place, much like "Matter" and "Anti-Matter". And therein lies the problem, which is rotting away at the foundation of the United States.

Let me see if I can break it down a bit more:

Under a Constitutional government, the power of the government is limited. Limited government allows the citizens to rule their country.

Under the Socialist brand of government, sometimes called an "Administrative state", citizens do not rule their country, bureaucrats do, and with them the elite intellectuals. At least THEY think they are elite!

The United States was founded as a free country. Its citizens were autonomous. They were free. The US had a free economy. That was the way the designers of this land, the Founding Fathers, planned it. And it worked... right up to the dawn of "Socialism in American" during the reign of, and as the direct results of actions taken by, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It has been downhill for America ever since.

Socialism is a creeping disease. It is quiet and deadly. It offers much and deliver almost nothing.

Simply put, Socialism is a trade off. A people must give up freedom for security. It is just that simple. IF you would be a free people, then you cannot allow socialism, in any form, in your country's government. If, on the other hand, you wish to be secure, from want and fear, then you absolutely MUST give up your freedom. That is the choice.

The American Left is the driving force behind socialism in America. Lets be clear: Socialism is anti-American.

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/ ...

So... Republicans are socialists? Patriot Act? War on Terror? Imposing restrictions on travel, routine searches before permitting access, surveillance on communication, etcetera etcetera? These are all restrictions put in place by a Republican controlled administration. To be fair, the Democrats have given this a pass and continued these actions; but THAT is demonstrably giving up freedom. I'll give you that bureaucrats must love a good socialism, but bureaucrats have nothing to do with party affiliation, and our current bureaucrats aren't using socialism to remove the people from control. Claims that we're all under the yoke of socialism are greatly conflated. We're not the old Soviet Union, disincentivized from working because there are no rewards to work toward. I think we continue working as we have to, do the job we're supposed to (if we have a job), but are disillusioned because the reward from that hard work seems to bless fewer of us. With rulings like Citizens United, we see how free economy blesses the masses with freedom. Those with money have more force to their speech than those who don't. So the people are more free? Or those who have more are free?

My pocket rant is meaningless anyways. I do believe you're conservative and dislike liberals (which I'm not, I'm right of democrat, left of republican, affiliated with neither party), but you're screed likely had less to do with fear of socialism and more to kicking a nest of bees for pleasure. Troll some more. It increases the thread count.

HeadLever: However, when you have trillion dollar deficits every year, it is time to cut out the fluff.

No it is time to change things that will actually make a farking difference. When you have not enough income to pay your mortgage the solutions are, in order of perference, more income followed by a smaller mortgage. buying a cheaper brand of toilet paper is not actually going to help.

This one doesn't. However, I also belive that it is not a valid use of my taxpayer dollars.

Yeah, why should we spend money educating our children?

We do. Public education is something I support. However, last time I looked, having taxpayer money spent on PBS was not required for our kids to become educated. I love PBS and have supported them in the past. Still don't want may taxpayer dollars going to them.

I don't want my money going to the military to invade other countries whenever we get a raging erection for it. That's a far worse use of money than funding educational shows. And do you really believe that killing one television station will stop and reverse the deficit?

Hey, add me to that list! Where I differ is that I don't want it done with tax money. Like I said, I have personally supported PBS. I can afford it. The government - not so much.

It sounds to me like you think it's worth it, but not that it's a good investment. If it is a good investment, the government should make it, and in a sense can't afford not to.

That is, the economic benefits are not direct, but if it culminates and a better educated and more civil society, and then finally in a more productive economic sector (to such an extent that the incoming tax dollars are higher than they would have been, by an extent greater than the amount of tax dollars that went into the program), then that is a good investment, and the government absolutely should make it.

Lando Lincoln:Just as soon as someone actually sits down and shows us how it can be done.

Logistically, not a problem. Politically, it is suicide. Seriously, just take a look at the feathers you ruffle when you want to cut something that is as small and insignicant as public funding for PBS in the grand scheme of things. Now go try do something similar to Medicare or Dept of Defense.

Lando Lincoln:Many PBS stations aren't. So if you defund PBS then a lot of the stations that feed rural areas are going to close down. A lot of redneck kids are going to have to go without.Is that what you want?

I already lost my PBS station when the digital switchover happened. I live in a "poor" town and don't have cable. The two larger, wealthier towns on both sides of me got their promised upgrade and now have 3 or 4 PBS channels. This is the only place I've ever lived where I can't watch PBS on antenna TV.

No point, I just wanted to biatch. But I kind of doubt that PBS is rolling in money.

cryinoutloud:Lando Lincoln: Many PBS stations aren't. So if you defund PBS then a lot of the stations that feed rural areas are going to close down. A lot of redneck kids are going to have to go without.Is that what you want?

I already lost my PBS station when the digital switchover happened. I live in a "poor" town and don't have cable. The two larger, wealthier towns on both sides of me got their promised upgrade and now have 3 or 4 PBS channels. This is the only place I've ever lived where I can't watch PBS on antenna TV.

No point, I just wanted to biatch. But I kind of doubt that PBS is rolling in money.

PBS does a pretty awesome job of putting their shows online, if you weren't aware. Obviously doesn't help the rural areas w/o Internet, but just an FYI for your benefit.

HeadLever:Keizer_Ghidorah: So, what did PBS do to make you hate it so much?

Nothing. I just belive that it should not be funded by our tax dollars, especially in light that our debt is over 100% of GDP.

Like I said, I like most of PBS's shows.

How about instead of killing one TV station, we tackle the actual source of the problem? Destroying PBS is not necessary, except as a "SEE!? SEE!? WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING!!" hollow feel-good motion.

Big Bird has had it coming for a long time. There was the Oscar the Grouch debacle, then the Snuffleupagus incident. Not to mention what he did to Elmo's mother. Fu*king bird thinks the world revolves around him, just because he's "big" bird. bag of feathers is lucky we don't box him up and send him to china. In short, F*CK Big Bird.

All this time I thought it was the fat cats on Wall Street that were running the country into the ground. Thank you Mitt Romney for showing America that it was Big Bird on Sesame Street the whole time. Please forgive us, I hope you can understand why we so easily confused the two.

Queue33:Why would you stake out a position in opposition to childhood joy and unconditional love?

Because those two things are useless in the coal mines, weavers' looms, janitorial services and other labor where our children can be better utilized. There is no joy, there is no love, there is only work.

So sayeth the NEWT./he probably had no childhood joy or unconditional love//how else does one explain that level of assholiness?

rewind2846:Queue33:Why would you stake out a position in opposition to childhood joy and unconditional love?

Because those two things are useless in the coal mines, weavers' looms, janitorial services and other labor where our children can be better utilized. There is no joy, there is no love, there is only work.

So sayeth the NEWT./he probably had no childhood joy or unconditional love//how else does one explain that level of assholiness?

I know that is the GOP policy. I have just never understood how it translates to votes.